Last week, a GameStop spokesman alluded to internal research that the company said showed consumers were significantly less likely to buy a console that wasn't able to play second-hand games, but it wouldn't reveal the specific results of that survey. Now, a GameStop executive has said publicly that three out of five customers it surveyed said they wouldn't buy such a system.

"I think it was 60 percent of customers who said they wouldn't buy a new console [if it blocks used games]," GameStop CFO Rob Lloyd told the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference (as reported by VG247). "Consumers want the ability to play preowned games, they want portability in their games; they want to play physical games. And to not have those things would be a substantial reason for them not to purchase a new console."

It's not clear how the survey was conducted, but the results likely come from a self-selected group of customers filling out an online questionnaire for the chance at a cash prize. Furthermore, simply saying you're against buying a used-game-free system is different from actually refusing to buy a system that has that killer exclusive title you want. And GameStop obviously has an interest protecting the significant profits it makes from used game sales by casting the used game market in the most positive light possible.

All that said, potentially alienating more than half of the console-buying audience in an effort to stifle the game resale market seems like a risky move. Yes, blocking used sales (as Microsoft and Sony have bothbeen rumored to be considering for their next consoles) means publishers and console makers would make money directly from every game sale, but if those sales are coming from a base of customers that is half the size it could have been, that might be a Pyrrhic victory.

Lloyd also pointed out that only four percent of GameStop's used game sales are for games that were released in the last 60 days, implying that used games are primarily providing an extended market for older and out-of-print games rather than sapping the market for newly released ones.

And I'm on the fence about used game sale blocking in terms of whether or not I buy a console. I buy a lot of games - I've got just over a hundred for the 360 alone - and most of them are bought new (somewhere between 66% and 75%, I'd say).

But I really like occasionally just perusing the cheap used games section to take a flyer on something oddball.

Taking that option off the table will definitely make me hesitant to buy a new console, though I won't make the bold statement that I would never,

I've had exceedingly bad luck with used games. I don't think I'll ever do that. Plus the wonderful thing of a system like STEAM, is that I never lose my games anymore. Funny I have all my old Carts, but as soon as we went to Discs, I started losing them left and right.

And I'm on the fence about used game sale blocking in terms of whether or not I buy a console. I buy a lot of games - I've got just over a hundred for the 360 alone - and most of them are bought new (somewhere between 66% and 75%, I'd say).

But I really like occasionally just perusing the cheap used games section to take a flyer on something oddball.

Taking that option off the table will definitely make me hesitant to buy a new console, though I won't make the bold statement that I would never,

Except if we take these rumors at face value, it's not just resale that's affected, it's lending to friends, transfer to a new device when your old one dies, etc etc. If not completely verboten, it will be a royal PITA.

drop the price of new games to $30 and keep it that way. watch sales volumes sky-rocket and the used market whither. too simplistic? maybe, but i'd be more than willing to take the down votes if it came true.

I'm on the side of being able to play used games or shared games. I would have never tried the Batman Arkham series (figuring it was another lame game with comic book character painted on) except a wife's friend lent it to me. I purchased both Asylum and City afterwards.

However, This poll is a bit of a selected audience who use the gamestop 2nd hand services. The console makers are looking at a broader audience.

[quote=Gamestop] "Consumers want the ability to play preowned games, they want portability in their games; they want to play physical games. And to not have those things would be a substantial reason for them not to purchase a new console."[/quote]

Gamestop has much more at stake than the revenue from pre-owned games. Without that revenue then they become even less relevant to consumers who tend to frequent the likes of Target, Best Buy, Walmart, and other big box stores who also sell consoles and games. Pile on the rise in popularity of digital downloads and Gamestop is making a case for it's entire existence in the quote above. If I download games, I've given up portability, physicality, and resell already. If I eliminate just the resell, then consumers who want portability or a physical game, can get that from anyone. Gamestop becomes irrelevant.

A bit biased survey base, but even if you correct it a bit it's still a substantial amount.

People don't like to be restricted and word of mouth will kill it in the most exaggerated fashion it can (people are hardly accurate). That doesn't even factor in what Nintendo would do.

Quote:

Being a PC gamer who went through the "OMG STEAM IS THE DEVIL" phase, I can say for a FACT that the vast majority of that 60% will change their mind after a year or two.

While this may be fine for PC games that are primarily single sitting player games (meaning single player or one person using the system to play multiplayer online) installed on a primary machine (how many gaming-quality PCs do you have lying around?), this won't work for families and friends that have multiple consoles across the house or take games over friends' houses.

drop the price of new games to $30 and keep it that way. watch sales volumes sky-rocket and the used market whither. too simplistic? maybe, but i'd be more than willing to take the down votes if it came true.

Unrealistic.

However, there's no doubt that there is another side to this coin that we haven't seen yet- assuming these rumors are true. If Microsoft said "Our games are going to start at $45 and the PS4 are going to start at $60 (or if SONY had their way, $75.) But you can't trade ours."

Years ago I quit buying anything digital that was locked down by the seller (with the exception of one or two steam games, but that's for different reasons). These companies are trying to wrest their goods out from those who made a legitimate first sale. I want to buy my wares, not lease them. This is a hard concept to explain to my kids.

My kid can buy a bike (I helped). He can ride it when he wants. He can lend it to a friend, he can sell it later if he wishes.

My kid buys a game. He can only play with it if it can communicate back to the mother ship (online connection required), he can't lend it to a friend and he can't sell it when he's done to help pay for another purchase. How do you explain this to a child without getting pissed off?

On the flip side, he contributed more than the average Joe when he purchased some software from the Humble Bundles. Yep, that's what I'm teaching him. I will not be helping him to promote this big business mindset, and I'm proud that I don't really need to as he is starting to understand the bigger picture.

Wait, so you're telling me a company that gets much of its profits from selling used games did internal research and found that a majority of their customers won't purchase something that doesn't benefit their company? Color me shocked.

I don't think GameStop is helping matters with all this arm flapping. While they may have a point in the meta-sense, does anyone see their bleeting as anything but self-serving?

Also: If I'm going to buy a used game, I'm going to do so because it's cheap. What GameStop charges for used games, often in shitty condition, is not a bargain. Amazon, NewEgg, etc. all have great deals from time to time on brand new games, even A-level titles. Every time I've thought, "eh, I'll buy it used..." I end up finding it just as cheap brand new. So I've never bought used. Scratch that: I bought Skyrim from another Arsian.

So yeah: While I don't wish harm on GameStop, if they've based their entire business survival on overpriced used games, they deserve the inevitable result.

While I don't personally buy used games, I sometimes like to take my games over to friends' houses and play there while visiting. If a game is tied to a physical console, that means having to unhook everything, lug it over, hook it up, play, unhook it, bring it back home, plug it back in, and pray that during the entire ordeal that nothing was damaged physically or from ESD.

It also depends how the digital download DRM is handled by the console makers. If it's anything like the atrocious Nintendo policy, no thank you. If it's something more akin to Steam where I can log into another machine, download it, play it, and log out, that is much more reasonable. I would also expect more game companies to have to develop demos or advertise more to make up for lack of marketing from rental stores. I would also hope to see lower prices for games since they wouldn't be nearly as convenient or flexible.

For me whether or not a console blocks used games isn't a make/break purchase. It all depends on whether or not they have games I enjoy playing, and if they're reasonably priced for the expected entertainment value they offer.

Being a PC gamer who went through the "OMG STEAM IS THE DEVIL" phase, I can say for a FACT that the vast majority of that 60% will change their mind after a year or two.

While this may be fine for PC games that are primarily single sitting player games (meaning single player or one person using the system to play multiplayer online) installed on a primary machine (how many gaming-quality PCs do you have lying around?), this won't work for families and friends that have multiple consoles across the house or take games over friends' houses.

Again, we don't know how this is going to work. For all we know it'll be tied to your gamertag and you can take it to a friend's.

Considering there's also the always-online requirement, it's likely to facilitate moves similar to how Steam manages it.

drop the price of new games to $30 and keep it that way. watch sales volumes sky-rocket and the used market whither. too simplistic? maybe, but i'd be more than willing to take the down votes if it came true.

Unrealistic.

However, there's no doubt that there is another side to this coin that we haven't seen yet- assuming these rumors are true. If Microsoft said "Our games are going to start at $45 and the PS4 are going to start at $60 (or if SONY had their way, $75.) But you can't trade ours."

Well then, we are playing a completely different ball game.

I know. But won't you let me dream! Won't you let me dream!

You do raise an interesting scenario with game pricing. I'm not sure it works perfectly in an oligopoly console market but it is the kind of move that could turn the tide re: volume in the short-term launch time frame.

Although I hate the idea of not having used games, if they do this I would like to see an increase of Direct Downloads at a lower rate. Otherwise the next console will not be of good use to me. I hate having disks laying around means more to dust, I would rather have digital from launch day available, maybe even pre-order and download at midnight on launch. This should just be a feature of the new console used games or not.

And I'm on the fence about used game sale blocking in terms of whether or not I buy a console. I buy a lot of games - I've got just over a hundred for the 360 alone - and most of them are bought new (somewhere between 66% and 75%, I'd say).

But I really like occasionally just perusing the cheap used games section to take a flyer on something oddball.

Taking that option off the table will definitely make me hesitant to buy a new console, though I won't make the bold statement that I would never,

Except if we take these rumors at face value, it's not just resale that's affected, it's lending to friends, transfer to a new device when your old one dies, etc etc. If not completely verboten, it will be a royal PITA.

All true; no argument from me. But, speaking personally, the only one of those with any practical impact on my gaming is transfer to a new device when the old one dies - and I've already had to go through that on the 360 twice and the PS3 once for downloaded games. Neither was all that big a deal.

Not as easy as just popping a disc in and playing, of course, but also not hours of futzing around (luckily, my Wii has never died).

Don't get me wrong, this is a consumer-unfriendly move, and it will absolutely affect my buying decision. Being locked out of the option to buy used games rankles, even if I don't exercise it all that often.

I'm just saying that, as a practical matter, its effects on me personally are limited, so I won't make the claim that I would never buy such a console.

The gaming industry is no different from the publishing and motion picture industries in having to contend with a secondhand market. Used games just don't jump on in from out of nowhere to allegedly steal profits from developers, someone had to have purchased it new at some point for there to be a used game in the first place.

At $10 billion in new game sales in a down economy, the cries against used games from the developers and publishers comes off more like crocodile tears. Here's a thought, put out a product that people will want to pay full price for and they will do it. Gosh, you really don't hear the gaming companies whine about the practically free advertising they get from these supposedly evil Gamestop stores pushing preorders for upcoming titles now do you?

If EA, Sony, Microsoft, Capcom, Activision, etc, don't like businesses such as Gamestop, nothing is stopping them from opening their own outlets to peddle their wares. It's a mutually beneficial relationship between the retailer and the publisher. For the gaming companies to act otherwise is the height of absurdity.

If this locking out of preowned games is the way console gaming is going, then goodbye and good riddance.

I rarely sell my games. It seems every time I consider doing so, GameStop offers a pittance for them. So I'm much more likely to just give them away, sometimes to friends, sometimes to nieces and nephews. It would annoy me if I could no longer do that.

That said, I have a Wii U and the only retail games I have, other than the pack-in, are downloads. I didn't expect to love the ability to play off-screen so much and with downloads I never have to switch discs. I was playing on the tube last night, then switched to off-screen to continue playing while Frontline was on. Love it. I'm willing to pay a bit more for the convenience. I think Nintendo made a smart choice there. They're not blocking used games, but are still offering an incentive to pay more for downloads.

If, like your previous article suggested, prices for console games modeled more closely to Steam and other download services, the end customer isn't going to complain that much. It's the $60/game price-tag that many have issue with; which is that way, in part, due to after-market sales.

drop the price of new games to $30 and keep it that way. watch sales volumes sky-rocket and the used market whither. too simplistic? maybe, but i'd be more than willing to take the down votes if it came true.

Unrealistic.

However, there's no doubt that there is another side to this coin that we haven't seen yet- assuming these rumors are true. If Microsoft said "Our games are going to start at $45 and the PS4 are going to start at $60 (or if SONY had their way, $75.) But you can't trade ours."

Well then, we are playing a completely different ball game.

I know. But won't you let me dream! Won't you let me dream!

You do raise an interesting scenario with game pricing. I'm not sure it works perfectly in an oligopoly console market but it is the kind of move that could turn the tide re: volume in the short-term launch time frame.

Lower pricing is a red herring. They might use lower prices as the teaspoon of sugar, but I guarantee that once they've shifted the market to accepting no used game sales, the prices creep right back up again.

drop the price of new games to $30 and keep it that way. watch sales volumes sky-rocket and the used market whither. too simplistic? maybe, but i'd be more than willing to take the down votes if it came true.

Unrealistic.

However, there's no doubt that there is another side to this coin that we haven't seen yet- assuming these rumors are true. If Microsoft said "Our games are going to start at $45 and the PS4 are going to start at $60 (or if SONY had their way, $75.) But you can't trade ours."

Well then, we are playing a completely different ball game.

I know. But won't you let me dream! Won't you let me dream!

You do raise an interesting scenario with game pricing. I'm not sure it works perfectly in an oligopoly console market but it is the kind of move that could turn the tide re: volume in the short-term launch time frame.

That's the whole reason why the development inidustry is creaming themselves over this idea. As it stands now, the video game industry profit margains are STUPIDLY low for the vast majority of studios. Single-digit-ROI's are common.

This is largely because, after initial sales runs, publishers couldn't care less how well a title sells since beyond that point it's usually just used sales and trades. So what you're seeing is a focus on short-term high volume sales instead of focusing on longevity.

Thus the video game industry has turned to hype and advertising to sell games, focusing almost PRIMARILY on day-1 sales. Even if it sucks that I MAY pay more with this path, the impact it will have on the industry will largely be beneficial and would at least slow down this train of big publishers completely demolishing perfectly good franchises to capitalize on what little money they can even pull off.

But I'd wager more people care about a few dollars more than they do the fate of the industry.

drop the price of new games to $30 and keep it that way. watch sales volumes sky-rocket and the used market whither. too simplistic? maybe, but i'd be more than willing to take the down votes if it came true.

Unrealistic.

However, there's no doubt that there is another side to this coin that we haven't seen yet- assuming these rumors are true. If Microsoft said "Our games are going to start at $45 and the PS4 are going to start at $60 (or if SONY had their way, $75.) But you can't trade ours."

Well then, we are playing a completely different ball game.

I know. But won't you let me dream! Won't you let me dream!

You do raise an interesting scenario with game pricing. I'm not sure it works perfectly in an oligopoly console market but it is the kind of move that could turn the tide re: volume in the short-term launch time frame.

Lower pricing is a red herring. They might use lower prices as the teaspoon of sugar, but I guarantee that once they've shifted the market to accepting no used game sales, the prices creep right back up again.

Yeah! Just like the PC Market. Oh wait.

You do realize the Ubisoft who controls pricing of Ubisoft games for steam ALSO is the same Ubisoft who controls pricing of Ubisoft games on 360/PS3, right?

If you're thinking they're going to give the PC market a sweet deal and stiff the console gamers, you may want to look into buying a tinfoil hat.

jzgoda wrote:

It's not like they don't have a specific horse in this race.

If, like your previous article suggested, prices for console games modeled more closely to Steam and other download services, the end customer isn't going to complain that much. It's the $60/game price-tag that many have issue with; which is that way, in part, due to after-market sales.

I know quite a few people in a variety of positions across the industry. Publishers, Developers, Indie, AAA titles...

They all agree on 1 thing. The reason why prices are higher for console titles than PC titles is to account for the loss due to after-market sales. Period. You are 100% right.

Being a PC gamer who went through the "OMG STEAM IS THE DEVIL" phase, I can say for a FACT that the vast majority of that 60% will change their mind after a year or two.

You can't say for a fact unless you're from the future. Ignoring the retarded hyperbole that the editor here has embraced, PC games are completely different from console games.

The difference between the two is that a PC gets updated with newer versions of Windows (or a replacement operating system, period) and may not be backwards compatible; it's just not expected to be, either. The console, however, is expected to continue to play its old games throughout its entire lifetime. Who the fuck would want to buy an Atari nowadays if it was gimped like this?

I can assure you I will not buy a new console or console game that will not allow resale.

Gamestop is just trying to keep their business alive. Game trading and reselling will eventually be made impossible. You may be able to extend discounts to your friends, or get discounts on old games, but everything will be a digital download and you will have to pay for it. Allowing sharing simply does not work with digital media. If that were enabled the pirates would win and all of the "for profit" game developers go out of business essentially killing the industry.

Another possible effect of this move has just dawned on me - collector's editions with novel pack-ins.

Right now, the collector's edition of a game is a way to raise the price of the good for the people willing to pay it. The realities of the retail market mean the publisher can't effectively maximize the return from the eager early adopters by having CoD be $100 for opening weekend, then $75 for the next week, then $60 for the next six months.

Since that's infeasible, we get collector's editions with pack-ins designed to convince that same dedicated fanbase to pay extra for the game.

Once used game sales are verboten, thereby insulating the price from total demand, that kind of price variability becomes more accessible, meaning there's less incentive to use pack ins to inflate the early adopter price.

This bothers me personally almost more than the lack of used game sales - I enjoy collecting those little bits of gaming memorabilia.

This information brought to you by the department of made up statistics to further a corporation's profit driven agenda.

Even if it is accurate, it's about as useful as the time gamers boycotted Left 4 Dead 2, or Call of Duty, or anything really. It lasts right up until the thing actually comes out, and then those same people who are so good at internet nerdrage are in line to pick up their day 1 purchase.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.